IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/mancon/v9y2015i1p81-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Paradox Of Investment: Constraining Strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Diana COZMIUC
  • Ioan PETRISOR

Abstract

Studies show that managers forgo the economic benefits brought by research and development and cut these costs in order to face the pressure from investors for earnings per share. These studies are part of a relatively new discipline called value based management, that emerged as consultancy firms' advice in the 1990s and was implemented by companies around the millenium; it took several years for empirical studies about it to be possible. These two arguments have inspired a research about long-term decisions in companies according to value based management, and this article is part of this research. This article aims to analyze the arguments in favor of and opposed to correlating research and development costs to future economic benefits rather than to the period they are incurred. It is a multidisciplinary approach. The arguments in favor of relating research and development costs to future economic benefits come from strategic management and value based management. The arguments in favor of relating research and development costs to the period they are incurred come from financial accounting (with an exception) and short-termist behavior. We detect a break between forward looking information for management decisions (management accounting) and historic looking information for outside parties (financial accounting). Managers should use the former to make decisions, and value based management is the most recent stage in management accounting. Value based management practitioners among whom Siemens was selected as an example do treat research and development as an investment in the future despite the regulations of financial accounting to expend these costs. Whereas a causal relationship between research and development activities and future economic benefits is likely to exist despite uncertainty, current product sales and the cost of these sales bear no causal relation to incurred research and development costs. Management accounting that recommends the capitalization of research and development costs should inform managers about the implications of the break from financial accounting. The investment paradox is that the reason why strategic management indicates investment, uncertainty related to the early stages of a product, is the argument in financial accounting against capitalizing these costs and this latter is an obstacle to spending on research and development.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana COZMIUC & Ioan PETRISOR, 2015. "The Paradox Of Investment: Constraining Strategy," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 81-96, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:81-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://conference.management.ase.ro/archives/2015/pdf/9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F., 2001. "Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 349-410, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jana Fibírová, 2008. "The Competitive Advantage of Management Accounting [Konkurenční výhoda manažerského účetnictví]," Český finanční a účetní časopis, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(2), pages 78-90.
    2. Zbysław Dobrowolski & Grzegorz Drozdowski & Mirela Panait & Arkadiusz Babczuk, 2022. "Can the Economic Value Added Be Used as the Universal Financial Metric?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Chen, Clara Xiaoling & Lill, Jeremy B. & Lucianetti, Lorenzo, 2023. "Performance measurement system diversity and product innovation: Evidence from longitudinal survey data," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Leslie A. Robinson & Phillip C. Stocken, 2013. "Location of Decision Rights Within Multinational Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 1261-1297, December.
    5. Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2007. "Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 667-697, September.
    6. David Emsley, 2008. "Different interpretations of a “fixed” concept," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(3), pages 375-397, March.
    7. Eva Labro & Mark Lang & Jim Omartian, 2019. "Predictive Analytics and Organizational Architecture: Plant-Level Evidence from Census Data," Working Papers 19-02, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    8. Muurling, Rutger & Lehnert, Thorsten, 2004. "Option-based compensation: a survey," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 365-401.
    9. Leen Paape & Roland F. Spekl�, 2012. "The Adoption and Design of Enterprise Risk Management Practices: An Empirical Study," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 533-564, January.
    10. Patrick Afflerbach & Martin Hohendorf & Jonas Manderscheid, 0. "Design it like Darwin - A value-based application of evolutionary algorithms for proper and unambiguous business process redesign," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-21.
    11. Allan Hansen, 2011. "Relating performative and ostensive management accounting research," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(2), pages 108-138, June.
    12. Boubaker Adel & Berrahal Amira, 2015. "The impact of stock-options on the company’s financial performance," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 4(2), pages 63-72, June.
    13. Martin Lehnert & Alexander Linhart & Maximilian Röglinger, 2016. "Value-based process project portfolio management: integrated planning of BPM capability development and process improvement," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 9(2), pages 377-419, August.
    14. Yasheng Chen & Johnny Jermias, 2014. "Business strategy, executive compensation and firm performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 54(1), pages 113-134, March.
    15. Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2003. "Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 287-318.
    16. Zimmerman, Jerold L., 2001. "Conjectures regarding empirical managerial accounting research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 411-427, December.
    17. Robert Rieg, 2018. "Tasks, interaction and role perception of management accountants: evidence from Germany," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 183-220, August.
    18. Pamela Queen, 2015. "Enlightened Shareholder Maximization: Is this Strategy Achievable?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 683-694, March.
    19. Ahmed Imran Hunjra & Peter Verhoeven & Qasim Zureigat, 2020. "Capital Structure as a Mediating Factor in the Relationship between Uncertainty, CSR, Stakeholder Interest and Financial Performance," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Matolcsy, Zoltan & Wakefield, James, 2017. "Multinational headquarter control of wholly owned foreign subsidiaries," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 275-293.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:81-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ciocoiu Nadia Carmen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mnasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.